- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 15:30:39 -0600
- To: Chimezie Ogbuji <ogbujic@bio.ri.ccf.org>
- Cc: Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>, "McBride, Brian" <brian.mcbride@hp.com>, GRDDL Working Group <public-grddl-wg@w3.org>
Chimezie Ogbuji wrote: > On Tue, 20 Feb 2007, Dan Connolly wrote: > >> I can't tell if you're serious or not. In case you are... > > I was.. > >> The spec currently (1.226) says >> >> "A GRDDL-aware agent should... Find each transformation... Apply each >> transformation..." >> so yes, it has a SHOULD-level obligation to apply the javascript; >> meanwhile, that bit of the spec >> follows "Subject to ... local policy as expressed in its >> configuration ..." and it's pretty >> clear to me that "I don't do javascript" is a reasonable policy, >> especially given >> our position on #issue-whichlangs... > > Since the idea of a 'local policy' is pretty loose (theoretically, one > such policy could be to *not* apply *any* transforms at all) does it > render the conformance label moot - as it is currently written? No. Should means should; it means do it unless you have some good reason not to. If you have a good reason to not apply any transformations, then don't. If you have a software module that never applies any transformations and you claim it's a conforming GRDDL-aware agent, I don't think whether that claim is true or not has much impact; the market will judge it harshly in any case. The conformance label is not so valuable to me that I would object to taking it back out... ... so long as somebody else did the editing this time. 1/2 ;-) > Consider that such a policy would result in 'no' GRDDL result(s) for > an IR which is *supposed* to have one or more. Whether an IR has a GRDDL result is orthogonal to whether any given agent computes it. >> "Developers of transformations should make available representations >> in widely-supported formats. XSLT version 1[XSLT1] >> <http://www.w3.org/2004/01/rdxh/spec#XSLT1> is the format most widely >> supported by GRDDL-aware agents as of this writing, though though >> XSLT2[XSLT2] <http://www.w3.org/2004/01/rdxh/spec#XSLT2> deployment >> is increasing. While technically Javascript, C, or virtually any >> other programming language may be used to express transformations for >> GRDDL, XSLT is specifically designed to express XML to XML >> transformations and has some good safety characteristics." >> -- http://www.w3.org/2004/01/rdxh/spec#txforms > > This is a pretty clear health warning IMHO. It is the conformance > mandate that confuses things, it seems, as they are applied within the > context of open-ended policies. Is your preference to take out the conformance label? I guess the "1. Find each transformation..." list would go with it. I think that list is responsive to a number of comments that Dave Beckett has made, and I'm reluctant to take it out. Would you leave Jeremy's security stuff in? Or take it out? -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Tuesday, 20 February 2007 21:30:49 UTC